Mueller v. State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety, et al.

Filing 252

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 18, 2020 (ECF No. 236 ) IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN ESPINDA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN ESPINDA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED ON MARCH 18, 2020 (ECF No. 242 ) - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 4/14/2020. Th e Court clarifies that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim remains against Defendant Freddie Carabbacan, in his individual capacity, and Nolan Espinda, in his individual capacity. To the extent that any qu estion exists as to any Section 1983 claims against the Defendant State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety, and against Defendant Nolan Espinda, in his official capacity, they are DISMISSED on the basis that those Parties are not "persons" within the meaning of Section 1983. (jo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ELIZABETH A. MUELLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF )
PUBLIC SAFETY; FREDDIE
)
CARABBACAN, in his individual )
and official capacity as Deputy )
Sheriff; NOLAN ESPINDA, in his )
individual capacity and
)
official capacity as Director )
of the Department of Public
)
Safety; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CIV. NO. 17-00571 HG-WRP

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT’S ORDER OF MARCH 18, 2020 (ECF No.
236) IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN ESPINDA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART,
DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN
ESPINDA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED ON MARCH 18, 2020
(ECF No. 242)
Plaintiff Elizabeth Mueller filed a Complaint against:
(1)

Defendant State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety;

(2)

Freddie Carabbacan, in both his individual and official
capacity as Deputy Sheriff; and,

(3)

Nolan Espinda, in both his individual and official
capacity as Director of the Department of Public
Safety.

The Complaint arises out of an alleged sexual assault that
occurred while Plaintiff was in the custody of the Department of
Public Safety.
On March 18, 2020, the Court issued an Order on the Parties’
1

Motions for Summary Judgment.

(ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND

DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN ESPINDA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY’S
LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF DEFENDANT FREDDIE CARABBACAN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ECF No. 236).
On April 1, 2020, Defendant State of Hawaii, Department of
Public Safety and Defendant Nolan Espinda filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration.

(ECF No. 242).

Defendants seek

clarification as to the Court’s ruling as to Plaintiff’s Section
1983 claims against the remaining Defendants State of Hawaii,
Department of Public Safety, Freddie Carabbacan, and Nolan
Espinda.
The Court seeks to clarify the Order of March 18, 2020, in
light of the questions raised in the Defendants’ April 1, 2020
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 242).
I.

The Court Clarifies The Distinction Between The Qualified
Immunity Claims Raised By The Defendant State Of Hawaii,
Department Of Public Safety And Defendant Nolan Espinda, In
His Official Capacity, And The Section 1983 Claims Against
The Defendants
The following claims remain in Plaintiff’s Count I:
Count I:

Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Defendant
Freddie Carabbacan, in his individual capacity,
and Nolan Espinda, in his individual capacity.

Defendants are correct that a State is not a “person” within
2

the meaning of Section 1983 and cannot be sued pursuant to
Section 1983.
64 (1989).

Will v. Mich. Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,

The State is also correct that Defendant Espinda in

his official capacity does not constitute a “person” within the
meaning of Section 1983 because a suit against the official
capacity office is akin to a suit against the State itself.

Id.

at 71.
II.

Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity
The Court’s March 18, 2020 Order addressed a separate

argument made by Defendant State of Hawaii, Department of Public
Safety and Defendant Nolan Espinda, in his official capacity, in
their Motion for Summary Judgment.
State’s argument.

The Court rejected the

The March 18, 2020 Order explained that a

State Defendant waives sovereign immunity when it removes a case
to federal court.

This is a separate, different argument from

whether the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, actually applies
to a named defendant.
The March 18, 2020 Order cited to Walden v. Nevada, 945 F.3d
1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2019).

The rule in Walden is clear.

“A

State defendant that removes a case to federal court waives its
immunity from suit on all federal-law claims brought by the
plaintiff.”

Walden, 945 F.3d at 1095.

The March 18, 2020 Order explained to Defendants State of
Hawaii, Department of Public Safety and Defendant Nolan Espinda,
in his official capacity, that their Motion for Summary Judgment
3

on the basis of sovereign immunity must fail.

The State and

Espinda relied on outdated caselaw for their argument that States
may only be sued where Congress has abrogated the sovereign
immunity of the States pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

(Def.’s Motion at p. 17, ECF No.

198-1).
The Court’s March 18, 2020 Order cited to Walden because no
Party had cited or discussed the case.

The State Defendants were

apparently not aware of the precedential decision from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court included the decision in

order to inform the State Defendants that their Motion based on
abrogation of sovereign immunity was not properly asserted and
ignored their own waiver of sovereign immunity by removing the
case to federal court.

The Court directed the State Defendants

to Walden to prevent the State from repeating the argument in
further proceedings.
III. Section 1983 Claims
The argument that Plaintiff cannot bring Section 1983 claims
against the State or against Nolan Espinda in his official
capacity because they are not “persons” within the meaning of the
statute is a separate argument.

The Court did not believe it

necessary to address this argument in its March 18, 2020 Order
because it is clear law.
The Court points out that this is a separate argument from
sovereign immunity.

A State Defendant can consent to suit in
4

federal court based on removal.

The ability to sue “persons”

within the definition of Section 1983 is a different question.
The question is sometimes intertwined with “sovereign immunity”
in the caselaw, but these are separate legal arguments and should
be made as such.
Here, the Section 1983 claims remain against Defendant
Freddie Carabbacan, in his individual capacity, and against
Defendant Nolan Espinda, in his individual capacity.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
5

CONCLUSION
The Court clarifies that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim
remains against Defendant Freddie Carabbacan, in his individual
capacity, and Nolan Espinda, in his individual capacity.
To the extent that any question exists as to any Section
1983 claims against the Defendant State of Hawaii, Department of
Public Safety, and against Defendant Nolan Espinda, in his
official capacity, they are DISMISSED on the basis that those
Parties are not “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:, April 14, 2020, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Elizabeth A. Mueller v. State of Hawaii, Department of Public
Safety; Freddie Carabbacan, in his individual capacity and
official capacity as Deputy Sheriff, Department of Public Safety,
State of Hawaii; Nolan Espinda, in his individual capacity and
official capacity as Director of the Department of Public Safety,
State of Hawaii; Doe Defendants 1-10, Civ. No. 17-00571 HG-WRP;
ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT’S ORDER OF MARCH 18, 2020 (ECF No.
236) IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN ESPINDA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART,
DEFENDANTS STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOLAN
ESPINDA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED ON MARCH 18, 2020
(ECF No. 242)
6